Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Reading Map #4 - Pauline Muljana (Combination of knowledge in the head and…
Reading Map #4 - Pauline Muljana
Novices vs Experts (Bransford, 2000, pp. 31-50)
Novices
Non-meaningful pattern
Not sure how to approach a problem, e.g. when learning a quantitative subject, learners merely plug the numbers in the formula.
Lack of chunking strategy
Good opportunity to improve instructions for scaffolding novices to learn "what to see"
Employing "instructional procedures that speed pattern recognition" (Bransford, 2000, p.43) to "trigger condition for accessing knowledge that is relevant to a task" (Bransford, 2000, p. 48)
The importance of using pedagogical content knowledge for teaching
Don't use superficial coverage [Unfortunately, this is what the Net does.]
Show a model how experts approach a problem.
Experts
Approach a problem with a "big idea"
Chunking information into meaningful unit and applying it in meaningfully as well
Artisan vs Virtuoso
Artisan: View new challenge as an opportunity to use existing skill more efficiently
Virtuoso (also called adaptive expert): View new challenge as an opportunity to increase their skill
Involving metacognition
Only relevant information is selectively used (conditionalized)
Knowledge Acquisition (McNamara & O'Reilly)
Semantic network
Knowledge is meaningfully organized
Using concept map
Types of knowledge
Declarative
Facts, concepts, and events
Procedural
Procedures/productions. The proficiency requires practices but more lasting.
Practicing declarative knowledge can improve procedural knowledge.
Five guidelines
Learning and retrieving in similar conditions
Matching learning and assessment conditions to optimize retrieval process.
Connecting new information to prior knowledge
Helping learners fill in contextual gaps in an attempt to understand new information
Processing and retrieving information frequently
Repeating retrieval attempts, instead of repeating information, to improve memory.
Creating cognitive procedures
Such as mnemonics (to create mental imaging as retrieval cues) and metacognition (to be aware on one's own learning process to help optimize learning or fix learning issues)
Processing information semantically
Building knowledge more meaningfully
Reflection
Content modules can be designed such a way to show the alignment between learning objectives, learning activities, resources as well as assignment or assessment. Spelling out learning objectives provides transparency to learners. Moreover, if learners know "why" they have to work on such assignment, it will make the assignment more meaningful to them. Also, remember to use relevant information and tasks only.
What makes sense to experts may not make sense to novices. I remember looking at my physics teacher enthusiastically explaining a concept but I didn't understand anything. When teaching novices to learn "what to see," I think we need to chunk the information units according to the level of difficulty and gradually increase the complexity. Conducting a pre-knowledge survey would be helpful to figure out the level to start.
To follow natural mapping, course designer should arrange the navigational items accordingly. For example, if the learners are supposed to go over the orientation first before everything else, place the orientation module as the very first order with an obvious cue.
Since continual practice has an important role in strengthening procedural knowledge and minimizing conscious thinking (which are what experts do), each course module should be designed consistently containing multiple opportunities to practice. The consistency will help automate action cycle. The frequency will improve the retrieval process.
To promote the development of declarative knowledge, we can assign frequent exercises that target lower-order thinking. These frequent practices are beneficial for the retrieval efforts later on when the learners work on assignments related to procedural knowledge, which target higher-order thinking. I can see how using Bloom's Taxonomy is relevant in boosting both types of knowledge.
Combination of knowledge in the head and in the world (Norman, 2013 pp. 74-122)
STM/working memory vs LTM
STM/working memory has limited capacity
Design should consider multiple sensory modalities to minimize overworking STM/working memory
LTM
Sleep plays a role in strengthening LTM.
Retrieval may be disorganized and wrong since it's reconstructive process.
Simplifying memory
Long ago, people recited and memorized long poems. However, those poems were composed structurally with rhymes, themes, story lines, etc, and thus helped the memorization. [How interesting! Isn't it a chunking strategy?]
In the case someone had to repeat a poem recited by someone else, 100% accuracy wasn't expected as long as it contained the "same tone."
Knowledge in the head/internal memory
Meaningful
Good design should provide meaning & structure
Arbitrary
Initial conscious thinking followed up by continual practice leads to action automation. Experts do this and thus minimize conscious thinking.
"Good enough" technique helps minimizing the overwork of memory.
Although we don't know all the knowledge in the world, we can still engender precise behavior.
With an exception, it depends on people's history. Remember the stories about new coin introduction!
Knowledge in the head
Available whenever perceivable
Requires no learning, but it depends on interpretation.
